"He didn't even try to not use drone strikes as he has, or to roll back the intelligence programs started under Bush, or break up the banks, or not push for wars in Libya and Syria, or really try and keep the Democrats' majority in 2010, and those are all things he could have done on his own or made the policy push to try and have happen."

So why are you conservatives so pissed at him then, if he's such a moderate?
Are you admitting that your party's opposition to Obama is completely irrational?

Cue more excuses as to why, despite Obama's very middle of the road policies, you still hate him.

"Habits of democratic centralism die hard."

If I were to be a doe-eyed leftwing critic of Obama you'd still manage to use this trite snark.

"but there has been plenty that he could have done, despite obstructionism, that he hasn't even come close to."

Like what. Keep in mind whatever he has done unilaterally has been blown out of proportion as "tyranny" and virtually all of his modest reform proposals have been lambasted as "socialism" by both the press and the Republicans.

I'm arguing that it's possible for supporters to be extremely disappointed in him, not why I'm disappointed in him. It's pretty clear that's what I was going for, as mendax's understanding shows.

Uh, when he's done things unilaterally he's deserved that kind of outcry. His making recess appointments when the Senate is in session come to mind.

James K Polk?

"Then from whence comes your visceral rage against the man? It makes about as much as sense as me raging against Mark Rutte."

By all means, rage against Mark Rutte.

I don't really feel visceral rage against Obama, I just honestly find him a blatant moron.

Inexcusable errors:
1) Going on Pakistani TV to apologize for freedom of speech, instead of taking the opportunity to teach the rest of the worlds the terms of business with the free west.
2) Being casual about massive spying on close allies, including pure for-profit economic espionage.
3) Complete and utter failure to maintain credibility and initiative in Syrian crisis despite "red line"
4) More in general: I don't see major international issues resolved. Guantanamo Bay, problems with the Arab world and in particular countries like Iran and the Palestinian territories. All issues I believe he feels "strongly" about, but if I look five years back I can't discern any notable improvement in any of these situations.

Oh give me a break. How many appointments have the Republicans allowed to pass? It's staggering how much they have sabotaged the basic functioning of the government. Their obstructionism is indefensible.

"It's pretty clear that's what I was going for, as mendax's understanding shows."

And it completely exposes the rightwing criticism as hysterical, irrational, and blindly partisan.

The GOP's obstructionism is indefensible. That doesn't give him carte blanche to break the law in response.

When you go into a negotiation with your opening position being a compromise, it's clear that you have no serious intention of any radical change.

I have the feeling that he's the kind of person that expects everybody to jump into Kumbaya-mode upon him walking into a room. I know this kind of people. They bore me.

"I don't really feel visceral rage against Obama, I just honestly find him a blatant moron."

I don't believe you. You have posted several over-the-top rants about Obama which can only be rooted in visceral rage.

"All issues I believe he feels "strongly" about, but if I look five years back I can't discern any notable improvement in any of these situations."

Because you don't want to discern any improvement. Since most of your foreign policy criticism seems to stem from your ultra-hawkishness, I assume you want the Iranian threat containued. Obama got Russia & China to agree to crippling sanctions on the country, and the conservatives were ousted from power in Iran. Now we have Iranian-US repprochement. Tell me that would have happened under Romney, who thinks Syria is Iran's "outlet to the sea". But I guess he's more intelligent than Obama, right?

"Palestinian territories"

Are you kidding? Obama is the only President in recent memory to put any serious pressure on Israel on settlements, which is why the Israeli press has been about as hysterical as Fox News in their wrath towards Obama.

"Being casual about massive spying on close allies"

How do you think Romney would have handled that? Do you honestly think he or anyone else would have given a damn about Europe?

"Going on Pakistani TV to apologize for freedom of speech"

Never happened. How about we deal with reality, instead of Fox News make-believe? All he did was disavow the rancid video that caused deaths throughout the Muslim world.

"That doesn't give him carte blanche to break the law in response."

The Senate's sham session is a bs loophole the Republicans use to filibuster appointments and you know it. What is Obama supposed to, operate with nobody in the government?

"When you go into a negotiation with your opening position being a compromise, it's clear that you have no serious intention of any radical change."

He was not intending to be a radical. He was intending to be post-partisan. His big mistake was thinking the opposition, a party that has dedicated itself to unseating any elected Democrat by any dubious means they can dream up (see Clinton impeachment), never had any intention of playing ball.

rather *had any intention of playing ball

he's a smart guy - far too smart for anyone to believe that he honestly just failed to understand the Republican party in this way.

"All he did was disavow the rancid video that caused deaths throughout the Muslim world. "

And this, Putin, is *exactly* the problem. That video caused absolutely ZERO deaths. It was the crazy islamist who caused the deaths. That's the kind of distinction your friend in the White House is simply incapable of making.

"Never happened."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogk2dgSQETA

Then why is there a Youtube video about it?

"How do you think Romney would have handled that? Do you honestly think he or anyone else would have given a damn about Europe? "

That's the point. Romney would have had a response very similar to Obama, but it would come across as about a billion times less hypocritical than it does from Obama.

"but it would come across as about a billion times less hypocritical than it does from Obama."

So your outrage is based on nothing but how it looks? Good grief. You wouldn't have gotten so much as an apology for Romney. Obama is going out of his way to mollify the feelings of Merkel & co. But sorry he's not going to sit around and pretend like Europe doesn't engage in the same activity.

"That video caused absolutely ZERO deaths."

Would the deaths have happened if the video was never made? Do National Socialists who march in Jewish neighborhoods bear any responsible for riots that result? Or would saying so be "apologizing for free speech".

What would you have done? Given the middle finger to the Muslim world? How would that have worked out?

The idea that Republicans are obstructing defies the empirical evidence. The majority of Americans, over 50% of the population, live in states with complete Republican control of government, the legislature and governor. Less than 40% of Americans elected Democrats to the same level of control. The other 10% live in states with mixed control. 47 House of Representatives congressional districts voted for Obama, but elected a Republican representative. There goes the gerrymandering put forth by liberals. Obama is the first incumbent since the 1916 to win election to a second term with fewer votes than the first term win.
For anyone to claim that Americans gave Obama a mandate when they took the House from his party in 2010 and reiterated that decision in 2012 is simply living in a fantasy that ignores the reality of these facts.
There isn't any Republican obstructionism. Republicans are doing exactly what they said they would do in campaigns, and the American people voted for them to do just that.

Putin33 believes the president has the right to break the law when things don't go his way. Chilling.

"There isn't any Republican obstructionism."

Single biggest lie I've read on here in the past 2 years. Really shameless.

http://www.propublica.org/article/under-obama-more-appointments-go-unfilled
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

"There goes the gerrymandering put forth by liberals. "

Democrats controlled redistricting in exactly 7 states, most of which were already overwhelmingly Democratic.

"For anyone to claim that Americans gave Obama a mandate when they took the House from his party in 2010 and reiterated that decision in 2012 is simply living in a fantasy that ignores the reality of these facts. "

Democrats got more than a million votes more than the Republicans in the 2012 House elections.

"Obama is the first incumbent since the 1916 to win election to a second term with fewer votes than the first term win."

FDR's third and fourth term victories were by a smaller margin than his second term victory. Bill Clinton ran against a credible 3rd party challenger in 1992 and didn't get a majority of the popular vote in that election. He faced no such threat in 96. Ditto Nixon in 1968 & 72. A very disingenuous statistic. But should we be surprised? It's Emac.

"Republicans are doing exactly what they said they would do in campaigns"

Which is obstruct.

"Putin33 believes the president has the right to break the law when things don't go his way. Chilling."

Invictus supports a party whose sole purpose is to bring America to its knees because they didn't win the elections. Chilling.

And here we see how horrific both parties are.

We haven't had a Democrat on the topic yet, just a legit communist in Putin33.

"And here we see how horrific both parties are."

*Yawn* Faux equivalence.

That a communist is willing to back a milquetoast bourgeois party like the Democrats 100% against the Republicans demonstrates just how extreme the Republican Party is. And I'm not the only one.

I'm sorry to interrupt the regular political arguing, but ever time i see this thread title i think of nothing but this: media.lolwall.co/c/2013/03/they-still-do-not-suspect-i-am-a-mere-cat_260622-640x.jpeg

You may now return to your regularily scheduled 'discussion', please enjoy your class priviledge.

Yeah. Limited government, individual liberties, and government accountability. Real extreme idea here, right Putin?

Men like Rand Paul are trying to stand on principle and get the government under control, but their voices are continuously and relentlessly drowned out by the propaganda machine, perpetuated by indoctrinated fools such as yourself.

Take Rand Paul's threatened filibuster of Janet Yellen's nomination is an example of this. Paul wants nothing more than some simple transparency, but the statists are already screaming "OBSTRUCTION!" from the rooftops.

Can anyone seriously argue that it makes sense to nominate a new chairwoman of the Federal Reserve without even knowing what the Federal Reserve DOES?

I've never met a goldbug that knew what the Federal Reserve does. People like you still think banks need reserves to make loans and QE is "printing money". Paul's obstruction of Yellen is being done so he can steamroll his pet legislation to politicize the fed over and against the will of the majority. He would block any fed chair nominee, didn't matter who it was.

Also the guy who wants to live with his arsenal in the Wyoming wilderness is not going to persuade me that the Republican Party stands for moderation.

"Men like Rand Paul are trying to stand on principle and get the government under control"

You mean shut down the government because he couldn't accept the results of a democratic election and the laws passed by the elected legislature.

Fuck "moderation". Who even gets to decide what "moderate" is? The political axis is not fixed anymore, the media did away with that. What's "moderate" today is "radical" tomorrow. Also, I never mentioned Wyoming, for the record.

The Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt, most perverted, most sinister organizations ever devised. They're in the same league as the Nazi party, the Bolsheviks, and the Maoists. I am exhilarated that a man of principle is taking a stand against it.

I have a question for you: If a people chooses to do something evil based on a democratic election, does that make it *not* evil? Democracy is a poor justification for evil.

Seriously, some red flags should have gone up after the Federal Reserve had President Kennedy assassinated.